JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.85 passed by Sri S.K. Lakhtakiya, Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, dismissing the appeal No. 414 of 1979-80 and confirming the order dated 11.4.80 passed by Sri V.P. Singh, Assistant Collector 1st Class, Unnao. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff Siya Ram filed a suit u/s 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the declaration of his title in respect of the plot No. 183/4-10-15 situate in village Khakhara Khera and plot No. 190/1-5-4 situate in village Panapur Kalan. His case is that he is the sirdar in possession of the land in dispute. He was held sirdar by the consolidation authorities also. The defendant No. 1 Bhagwan Din is a member of the plaintiff's family. The defendant got his name fradulently recorded against the plots in dispute. A plea for ejectment of the defendant was also taken. 3. The defendant Bhagwandin contested the suit contending that the land was ancestral. The plaintiff was his cousin brother. He admitted to have lost the case during the consolidation but following a family settlement, he got plot No. 183 area 14 biswas and plot No. 190. Since that day, he had been continuing in possession and perfected his rights as Sirdar. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed 8 issues and decreed the suit after hearing the parties. An appeal filed before the Commissioner was also dismissed. Hence this second appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the question of jurisdiction contending that the jurisdiction can not be conferred on a court with consent of the parties. A jurisdiction is always conferred by the statute. Elaborating his point, the learned counsel has contended that two plots in dispute situate in two different villages but they have been covered by only one suit. I am unable to accept this contention. There cannot be two opinion on this point that the jurisdiction is conferred only by the statute and not by the consent of the parties. But where the land is situated in two different villages under the jurisdiction of the same court and both the Gaon Sabhas are impleaded as parties, the trial court is competent to try the suit. 5. But where the land is situated in two different villages under the jurisdiction of the same court and both the Gaon Sabhas are impleaded as parties, the trial court is competent to try the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse as the oral evidence on the point of family settlement has been rejected on flimsy grounds of contraditions. He further assailed the findings of the court below contending that there is no necessity to bring the family settlement in black and white. 6. Sri K.B. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that both the courts below have weighed, discussed and appreciated the evidence in full. Since these are the findings of fact, they cannot be disturbed in this second appeal. He has further submitted that the circumstances of the case also go against the defendant appellant who went upto the stage of the D.D.C. and lost his case. His contention is that how can a victorious party come to terms with a man who fought so fereciously. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the village folk is guided more by emotions than by reasons and it is quite possible that same counsel might have prevailed and both the plaintiff and the defendant come to terms. Had it not been so, the defendant appellant might have preferred a Writ Petition against the revisional order of the D.D.C. 7. The point for consideration in his case is whether the findings of the courts below are perverse as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned trial court has found that there is not reliable evidence to prove the family settlement. It has not found the defendant's witnesses independent as witness Devi Charan and Mathura had appeared against the plaintiff-respondent in a murder case. They were produced to prove the family settlement. I think that the learned trial court has committed no mistake in rejecting the testimony of these witnesses who had appeared against the plaintiff-respondent in a case of murder. 8. It is well settled that a family settlement needs not be in writing. However, it is to be proved by reliable evidence. The learned Additional Commissioner has rejected the testimony of the defendant witnesses on the ground that it is contradictory. 8. It is well settled that a family settlement needs not be in writing. However, it is to be proved by reliable evidence. The learned Additional Commissioner has rejected the testimony of the defendant witnesses on the ground that it is contradictory. The contraditions are no doubt, minor but it suffers from no perversity. It being a finding of fact, need not be disturbed in this second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in this case. 9. In the result, this appeal fails and is consequent by dismissed.